Thursday, June 25, 2015

One of the most amazing and powerful muscles in the human
body is the tongue. Without it we would hardly be able to speak and
communicate, let alone something like singing.

Besides that, our tongue greatly facilitates our ability to
eat because it moves the food around in our mouths while chewing. Try eating
without using your tongue sometime.

It also just so happens that our tongue contains all of our
taste buds which send signals to our brain letting us know if our food is
sweet, sour, salty, bitter, or umami (now being intensely studied). Imagine
your life without your taste buds every day at every meal and every snack in
between.

Evolutionists do not have an explanation for the origin of
the tongue. They also have a hard time explaining how a somewhat similar organ
accidentally developed in many, many totally unrelated species on the so-called
“tree of life”. Reptiles have long tongues for snatching their next meal out of
the air. Snakes have a forked tongue that also allows them to smell.
Butterflies have a proboscis that unfurls and gets inserted into flowers to
suck up nectar. The Blue Whale has the biggest tongue, weighing in at almost
6,000 pounds. [1] It certainly looks like there was some intelligent planning
going on.

The human tongue is composed of eight different muscles. How
wonderful that they decided to work together in harmony. If you refer back to
my Proof for God #61 Muscles [2], you will read that scientists have no
explanation for where muscles could have originated. Muscles are that unique.

Four of the eight muscles are attached to bones. They are
called “extrinsic” [3]. These muscles allow you to move your tongue out and
then back in, and side to side and back again to the middle. It certainly is a
wonderful accident (for atheists) that we developed a muscle that pulls the
tongue back in after we stick it out. Otherwise we’d be stuck with our tongue
out all day. I’m sure the muscle that pulls the tongue in must have evolved
second. If the tongue never sticks out, there would be no benefit for
developing a muscle to pull it back in.

The other four muscles in the tongue are called “intrinsic”.
“These muscles alter the shape of the tongue by: lengthening and shortening it,
curling and uncurling its apex and edges, and flattening and rounding its
surface. This provides shape, and helps facilitate speech, swallowing, and
eating.” [4]

The astounding property of these muscles is that there are
no other muscles like them in the human body. Scientists don’t know where they came
from and don’t know much about how they work either. The only similar muscles
like them are found in the legs of an octopus.

"The human tongue is a very
different muscular system than the rest of the human body," Khalil
Iskarous, an assistant professor of linguistics at the University of Southern
California who is helping to lead the research, said in a prepared statement.
"Our bodies are vertebrate mechanisms that operate by muscle working on
bone to move. The tongue is in a different muscular family, much like an
invertebrate. It's entirely muscle — it's muscle moving muscle." Both move
by compressing fluid in one section of a muscle, creating movement in another
part. But we know little about exactly how that movement is initiated and so
finely controlled.” [5]

If you look at the underside of someone’s tongue, you will
see lots of blood vessels. These are needed to constantly supply the muscles of
the tongue because it is always working. Even when you are sleeping your tongue
is working. You wouldn’t have a tongue without those blood vessels, so how do
evolutionists explain the accidental mutations that had to evolve both the
muscles and blood vessels simultaneously.

“When we swallow, we stop breathing, and a stiff little flap
attached to the back of our tongue covers the top of the trachea, so that food
slides down and into our stomachs and not into our lungs. That flap is called
the epiglottis.” [6] Can evolutionists explain the process of slow and gradual
development of the epiglottis? If you don’t have the whole thing in place from
the beginning, you would constantly be choking on your food.

You have of course heard of fingerprints. Well, you also
have a “tongue-print” that is totally unique to you among all human beings. [7]

“Your mouth is the home of 600 different types of bacteria
and a single saliva drop contains 1 million of those bacteria.” [8]

I imagine that atheists must feel very grateful for the
extremely long series of fortuitous accidents that allows them to be able to
talk. In an astounding coincidence to the evolution of a tongue, we also
evolved the larynx right at the top of the tube going to our lungs where air
could be exhaled over it to make various sounds. The mouth also evolved into a
very convenient shape that allows the three working together to make a
tremendous variation of sounds. Those sounds get accidentally heard by the ears
of other humans, who luckily evolved ears.

All those variations of sounds could
be repeated and repeated until the other person began to figure out that they
actually meant something intelligent. Atheists refuse to see any intelligent
planning behind all this. They insist that for every small incremental and
accidental mutation at the DNA level there must have been some benefit to the
new DNA so that it was “selected” by a natural (i.e. godless) law. It won out
over all other DNA patterns until the next slight change. Either the larynx,
tongue, and mouth developed simultaneously or they developed sequentially, but
in the end we could talk and others could listen.

As you can probably tell, I’m having trouble taking the
theory of evolution seriously.

What is the explanation for how taste buds evolved? They are
so small you can’t even see them.

“Each taste bud is made up of taste cells, which have
sensitive, microscopic hairs called microvilli. Those tiny hairs send messages
to the brain, which interprets the signals and identifies the taste for you.” [9]

The average tongue has between 2,000 and 10,000 taste buds. Each
taste bud has about 15 receptacles that send the signals about taste to your
brain. Every 10 to 14 days, your taste buds die off and are replaced with new
ones. [10] Thank God or cosmic accidents for that DNA mutation!

It’s really wonderful that taste buds accidentally would
evolve on your tongue rather than your toe, or your fingertip, or your elbow. In
fact, they are mostly found on the top side of your tongue with a few others
underneath your tongue, on your lips, or in your cheeks. [11] There are five
different kinds of taste buds. Now how did that evolve? And miraculously they
all happen to be on or around your tongue. How great is that?

None of your taste buds work unless they are in a moist
environment. That’s a nice coincidence too because your mouth is a moist
environment. In fact, the tongue is covered with a mucous membrane and even has
saliva glands to keep the tongue moist. By doing just a little research on the
chemical process that happens between the chemicals in our food and their stimulation
of our taste buds, we find that the whole process inside the receptors is
incredibly complex. I think evolutionists have a problem explaining this too.

If you put something sweet in your mouth, the taste receptor
for sweet gets triggered and sends an electrical signal all the way to a
specific location in your brain. Luckily there is a really, really long chain
of nerves that accidentally connects your taste receptor to your brain. It’s
really lucky or we would never know what sweet is.

I’m guessing that sweet taste buds would have had to be the
first to evolve because they are our favorite. Then after tens of thousands of
years there was an accidental mutation and another and another and finally we
had a new taste, maybe “salty” or “sour”. I’m pretty sure “bitter” would come
last. Then it happened again, and again, and again until there are finally five
different tastes. Wow. Is that believable?

How wonderful and amazingly lucky that we have all those
taste buds or else eating would be mighty, mighty dull. Also it’s a fantastic
coincidence (for atheists) that it just so happens that the food that
evolved out there in the world just
happens to trigger the taste buds that evolved and we end up with delicious
tastes. Not only delicious but nutritious too. If the food out there tasted
terrible and wasn’t healthy for us, we would never eat it and hence never have
energy to keep on living and evolve. Then we wouldn’t be here.

Monday, June 8, 2015

It’s funny that I remember learning about Spontaneous
Generation way back in grade school or middle school because I don’t remember
much else from those days. But I remember the teacher saying that people used
to believe that if you put an old shirt outside with some seeds in it that in a
few weeks you would spontaneously create mice out of the shirt and seeds. How
foolish they were. I was laughing inside that we are so much smarter these
days.

As a matter of fact, Spontaneous Generation is known to have
been believed as far back as the 4th century BC and up until the
middle 1800’s. It was famously explained by Aristotle.

“So with animals, some spring from
parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and
not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some
come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of
insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out
of the secretions of their several organs.”

—Aristotle, History of Animals,
Book V, Part 1 [1]

Spontaneous Generation is the belief that life can be
created in a very short period of time, almost spontaneously, if given the
right conditions. Here are some examples.

“For example, a seventeenth century
recipe for the spontaneous production of mice required placing sweaty underwear
and husks of wheat in an open-mouthed jar, then waiting for about 21 days,
during which time it was alleged that the sweat from the underwear would
penetrate the husks of wheat, changing them into mice. Although such a concept
may seem laughable today, it is consistent with the other widely held cultural
and religious beliefs of the time.” [2]

“Many believed in spontaneous
generation because it explained such occurrences as the appearance of maggots
on decaying meat.” [3]

“Crucial to this doctrine is the
idea that life comes from non-life, with the conditions, and that no causal
agent is needed (i.e. Parent). Such hypothetical processes sometimes are
referred to as abiogenesis, in which life routinely emerges from non-living
matter on a time scale of anything from minutes to weeks, or perhaps a season
or so.” [4]

It was not until 1859 because of an ingenious experiment by
Louis Pasteur that science began to realize that life does not occur by
Spontaneous Generation. In 1864 Pasteur came up with his declaration that “all
life is from life”. It has become known as the Law of Biogenesis.

“The law of biogenesis, attributed
to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other
living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into
spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the
position held by spontaneous generation. This is summarized in the phrase
"all life [is] from life." A related statement is "all cells
[are] from cells;" this observation is one of the central statements of
cell theory.” [5]

“For more than one hundred years,
biologists have taught that spontaneous generation of life from non-living
matter was disproven by the work of Redi, Spallanzani, and ultimately Pasteur.
This work was so conclusive; that biology codified the "Law of
Biogenesis," which states that life only comes from previously existing
life. Although, this doesn't prove absolutely that life couldn't ever have
generated itself from non-living matter because it is impossible to prove a
universal negative. However, the Law of Biogenesis is just as solid as the Law
of Gravity. (emphasis added. Ed.) Even though we accept the law of gravity, we cannot prove that if
you continued to drop apples forever, that at one point, one apple may not
fall.” [6]

“Spontaneous generation is the
incorrect hypothesis that nonliving things are capable of producing life.” [7]

Well, well, we seem to have a dilemma. Evolutionists want us
to believe, as they do, that a long time ago, life suddenly and spontaneously
sprang from chemicals. That would seem to contradict the Law of Biogenesis and
all established science since the 1850’s.

Atheists and Evolutionists are clever folks of course and
they know they have a problem, namely there is no such thing as Spontaneous
Generation, even on the bacterial level. So what do they conclude when all
scientific evidence is against them? They conclude there really was Spontaneous
Generation a long time ago and Pasteur didn’t really disprove it. Besides that,
Darwin wasn’t really talking about the origin of life. Others have taken
care of that argument, or not, sort of.

“So we must ask - what did Pasteur
prove? Did he prove that no life can ever come from non-living things? No, he
didn't, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that
experimentally, only theoretically, and he had no theory of molecular biology
to establish this claim. What he showed was that it was highly unlikely that
modern living organisms arose from non-living organic material. This is a much
more restricted claim than that primitive life once arose from non-living
non-organic material.” [8]

“1. Pasteur did not disprove the
origin of life by natural means, and the saying "all cells from
cells" was not intended to cover the initial period of life on earth.
Darwin did not propose a theory of the origin of life in the beginning.

2. Evolutionary theory was not
proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of
change once life exists. However, many have thought that the theory of
evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true. Of those, many
have thought that a natural account of the origin of life is necessary, and
some have proposed models which have borne up or not as research proceeds.” [9]

So what did Darwin really "prove", huh, using this reasoning? Did rocks come alive? The Theory of Evolution does require a beginning of life and it does not provide an explanation. In fact no scientific experiment has ever shown that one species can evolve into a different one

Scientists say there is no Spontaneous Generation. “All life
is from life.” I say so too. God is alive and God generated life. It didn’t
happen accidentally from chemicals or non-living matter.

About Me

Welcome to 101 Proofs For God for the "common man" This Blog was inspired by a prayer where I asked God how I could help Him and experienced a deeply lonely heart for His children. Hopefully my inspirations might tweak your thinking about the things all around you in this world.
Each proof should be just short enough for a 1 to 2 minute read.
May God bless you immensely and may you draw closer to Him every day. - Jim Stephens